[jo kus]

The Apostles made decisions based upon – not oral teachings – but on what they received directly from God and from God’s guidance

I know it is hard for you, Harley. But it's OK to admit it! Christ spoke to the Apostles orally. God spoke to the Apostles in the form of the Son's oral teachings.

However, I wouldn’t equate anyone in church history on the same level as the twelve apostles.

Nor does the Church. The writings of even the greatest of Church Fathers, St. Augustine or St. Ambrose, are NOT relegated to the role of Scriptures. Consider the difference between "proving" Scriptures and Sacred Tradition. The demands for the latter are much more strict than the former. IF an Apostle wrote it, it was Scriptures. It takes a more thorough study in determining the content of Apostolic Tradition.

Even the apostles didn’t fully understand God’s hand in their guidance.

I don't think the Pope understands everything, either! Who can know the mind of God? Our understanding is rather limited on this side of death.

yet there is very little mention of Mathias in scripture and even tradition is vague and sketchy on his accomplishments.

Yes, my historically-bent mind would love to have read about Mathias' exploits and the other apostles. Sadly, we don't have much info on them. We rest assured that since God appointed them to spread His Word, they were in virtual agreement in their teachings, as Paul mentions in Galatians - "ours is not a man-made religion"...

If total authority had been given to the Apostles to past down as you suggest, then Matthias would have been God’s messenger to the Gentiles-not Paul.

We presume that wherever Matthias went, he ALSO appointed bishops to continue God's teachings, just as Paul did with Timothy in Ephesus and Titus in Crete, since the Apostles were appointed by God and guided by Him. The Apostles didn't operate in a vacuum.

Regards

[HarleyD]

I know it is hard for you, Harley. But it's OK to admit it! Christ spoke to the Apostles orally.

That would be a silly thing for me to deny now wouldn't it? He also spoke to Judas orally.

The writings of even the greatest of Church Fathers, St. Augustine or St. Ambrose, are NOT relegated to the role of Scriptures.

Then there is a difference; while Christ might have spoke to the Apostles and they wrote things down, what makes their writings different? It can also be said that Luke was not an Apostle and yet his writings are inspired. There is a distinct difference between Church writings and what was written by the Apostles just as can be said that there was a distinct difference between the oral word of the Apostles and the oral word of anyone else.

We presume that wherever Matthias went, he ALSO appointed bishops to continue God's teachings

What is neglected is the recognition that Paul was NOT appointed through Apostolic succession. He was appointed by God and this was verified by Ananias in a vision. Now at the very least, if there were an Apostolic succession as you suppose, and Peter was the head of the Church, wouldn’t it make sense that God would have revealed Paul to Peter instead of Ananias, who wasn’t even an apostle? Instead the scriptures states that Ananias was a “disciple”-not even a church leader. And it was Ananias who laid hands on Paul so that he might regain his sight. It was after visiting with Ananias that Paul “immediately when out and preached”. My, my. He didn’t even get blessed by the first Pope.

Sorry, the conversion of Paul in Acts 9 does not square with Apostolic succession as God has recorded the events.